Osama bin Laden is Already Dead (In Depth Opinion Piece)

various sources | 11-28-01 | HighWheeler

[HighWheeler]

Osama bin Laden is Already Dead

By Highwheeler at freerepublic.com

In the weeks since the terrorist airliner hijackings and the subsequent attacks on the WTC and Pentagon, both U.S. military and U.S. political strategies have been slowly revealed. Not every piece of information was overt and obvious to the casual observer about these operations. While certain pieces of information were outwardly and proudly proclaimed, most were the carefully and heavily edited bits of information that still remain the most interesting. I am talking about the sporadic information that was missing, retracted, or just puzzling in its nature. This thesis is a compilation of the real data, real press released information, and extrapolations created about that missing, retracted and puzzling data. These data are then used to build conclusions on the events in the war against Afghanistan leading to the conclusion that Osama bin Laden is already dead.

As you read this keep these ideas in mind: 1) These are actual public-domain facts tempered with my opinion based on logic, history, technology, and human nature. 2) Please don’t jump to your conclusions until you have read the whole column, it is a fairly complex analysis and summary of events, and 3) some of the pieces of information are obvious but still necessary in order to completely draw the conclusions.

 

Objectives of the U.S. War on Terrorism:

1. The U.S. does not want to bring Osama to the U.S. for any kind of trial, it would make the OJ trial look like a neighborhood bake sale.
2. We do not want to create a martyr out of Osama.
3. We want to destroy Osama’s influence by killing him.
4. We want to disassemble the entire terrorist network, both physically and financially.
5. Destroying the entire terrorist network will take years to finish, and should be done by first removing the head.

 

Strategies required to reach U.S. Objectives:

1. Immediately freeze and acquire all possible terrorist related asset accounts in the world, removing the financial fuel of terrorism as much as possible, and to severely restrict the free flow of any remaining capital or assets.
2. Identify, round-up, and investigate all known terrorist suspects in the U.S.
3. Use heavy bombing in the first few hours on targets that are of special interest or high value to the terrorists to maximize the destruction, and to minimize the effect of their defensive response.
4. Begin physical elimination of terrorists and terrorist locations once the most critical targets have been identified.
5. We must kill the leader, Osama bin Laden, as soon as possible.
6. We must leave no witnesses, no time, no date, no place, nor a body with which to associate the demise of bin Laden. If we did:

1. It would create a rallying point for the terrorists, and
2. Notify the terrorist organizations that a new leader is required immediately to fill the newly vacant position.
3. May trigger pre-planned acts of terrorism as a direct response to the demise of bin Laden.

 

Assumptions:

1. Over the past 8 years (while Clinton was fostering and/or ignoring terrorism, or making the U.S. look weak in the eyes of terrorists) the FBI and CIA had been keeping fairly close tabs on known terrorists both here in the U.S. and abroad. (substantiation below)
2. We have satellites and other above-ground-level vehicles that can actually read the brand on a pack of cigarettes laying on the ground, and can also clearly view minor temperature variation such as body heat in the IR spectrum and use night vision technology. There was a full moon on October 2, 2001, 5 days before the initial attacks in Afghanistan, which would have made night vision extremely useful. (Readily Available Technology Theorem)
3. That the CIA has been in constant contact with planted terrorist operatives in Afghanistan before and during the bombing of Afghanistan. (James Bond Theorem)
4. Osama has become the hero of the taliban, and as such, the terrorists look at him with reverence and admiration, and want to be at least near him, even if they can't sleep in the same cave. (Bask In The Hero’s Reflected Glow Theorem)
5. An intelligent person would not create a huge risk by demanding something that they were not prepared to accept or really didn’t want. (Be Careful What You Ask For Theorem)
6. That there is actually no honor among thieves. (Jimmy Hoffa Theorem)

 

Additional facts:

1. Over 140 known US terrorists were taken into custody within 4 days of 9-11. Since then there are now 604 "detainees" in U.S. hands. This means that the FBI/CIA has been keeping track of terrorists.
2. Over 300 worldwide financial asset accounts were frozen well within 2 weeks of 9-11. This also means we have been keeping track of terrorists to some degree.
3. We spent almost a month in "strategery" before the first attack on Afghanistan. 26 or 27 Days depending on how you count, to be exact.
4. Saturation bombing of the terrorists and their facilities started on Oct 7.
5. On or about Thursday, Oct 11, 2001, less than 7 full days after bombing started, George Bush-43 stated during a press conference in no uncertain terms that he would "halt air strikes" if they handed over Osama bin Laden. The Taliban response was "Our jihad (holy struggle) . . . will continue until the last breath for the defense of our homeland and Islam" Which really didn’t address Bush’s offer to "halt air strikes" if they would turn over bin Laden. http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/10/13/ret.taliban.rejection/index.html
6. On October 25, 2001, USA Today reported that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had said that we might never catch Osama bin Laden. http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/tucker/01/binladen.html When asked about this later in the day at a press briefing, the Secretary backtracked. Under pressure from reporters, he said "I think we're going to get him."

Conclusions:

 

• The strategy Rumsfeld was initially employing was designed to create the illusion to the terrorists that Osama is still alive, that our intent is not necessarily to kill him, and to create a sound reason for the US to continue the campaign against terrorism.

• The only options for dealing with bin Laden that still meet all 5 Objectives and Strategy #6 above are to:

1. kidnap Osama undercover, take him out to sea, tie a big brick to him and kick him overboard. This is too risky since there would likely be many witnesses.
2. Kill him on the spot or after his capture when found. This leaves even more witnesses, a body, possible videotape.
3. Kill him and coincidentally bury him in a cave along with all nearby witnesses.

• The Talibanis would give up Osama if they could actually find him. Turning him over to the U.S. would produce four desirable outcomes from the Taliban’s point of view":

1. It would force Bush to keep his word to "halt air-strikes" in Afghanistan (or severely jeopardize or cripple his authority by reneging on his offer), and
2. It saves the remaining terrorist network, and
3. It would royally screw up the U.S.’s politically correct judicial system for years and years, and
4. They would be eligible to receive the $1B or $25M bounty (depending on which offer you believe) currently on bin Laden’s head. They can always use the money to continue terrorist activities and save their own lives and network in the process. Of course, this conclusion assumes that the Talibanis are not complete idiots, a poor assumption for sure, but does not diminish the other conclusions in anyway.

• In his press conference, Bush would have been certifiably out of his mind to publicly state that he would "halt air strikes" in exchange for Osama unless he was knew there was ABSOLUTELY NO WAY bin Laden could be handed over. This proposed deal, if enacted by the Talibanis by actually handing over bin Laden, would have violated all 5 U.S. Objectives of the War on Terrorism, plus violated the last 3 Strategies of the War.

• Using a ground offensive instead of the airstrikes to capture Osama is dangerous, obvious and slow, therefore it creates a low probability of successful capture of Osama. Disposal of the evidence is still a big problem with a ground offensive. This would also create at least some American witnesses to his demise, and violates Strategy #5. The information would leak out eventually.

 

[LaineyDee]

What would put him in such a cranky mood?

I would bet that little "thorn in the flesh" Berry... might have something to do with it, eh? I'd hate to be in her shoes right now!

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

Who?

[LaineyDee]

Mary Berry.... the radical bigot on the Civil Right's Commission ...who won't seat Bush's appointee.

[TopQuark]

This is the modus operandi of a conspiracy theory: If someone had a motive and means, he did it.

If only you put your clearly good mind and this much work into a worthy cause...

[HighWheeler]

This is the modus operandi of a conspiracy theory: If someone had a motive and means, he did it.

OF COURSE it's a conspiracy theory. Where in Sam Hill does my post say anything remotely to the contrary? The difference between my post and yours is that I backed up my suposition with facts, risk analysis, and logically extrapolated opinion, but yours is not backed up at all.

Could you post your contrarian position? I would like to read your views. As of now, your view seems to be the simple, unsubstantiated, negative of mine: "If someone had a motive and means, he didn't do it". Set me straight.

If only you put your clearly good mind and this much work into a worthy cause...

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I'll determine what is "a worthy cause" on my own without checking first with the Worthy Cause Police.

[TopQuark]

Thank you for you reply. To begin, I am sorry if the brevity of my previous reply offended you: that, most certainly, was not my intention.

Could you post your contrarian position? That is a confirmation of my previous statement. Why do you assume that one has to have a "contrary position?" The scientific method dictates to reserve judgment, that is, not form any conclusion --- contrary or any other --- unless there is a substantial evidence. Conspiracy theories, to the contrary, violate this principle. As I mentioned earlier, the fact that something is possible and plausible is insufficient. Once can advance any hypothesis he wants, but a theory should pass through more stringent tests. That is the difference.

Your tacit assumption that there must be a contrary position, illustrates that very pattern of thinking.

I would like to read your views. As of now, your view seems to be the simple, unsubstantiated, negative of mine. To the contrary, I have stated that I have a very positive view: I do not say very often that someone has a good mind because I do not very often encounter such minds. My view may be indeed simple and unsubstantiated, but not negative, thus.

"If someone had a motive and means, he didn't do it". Set me straight. Very easily: I have never said that. What I did say was, "If someone had a motive and means, he did it." This form of arguments is what unites all conspiracy theories.

Here as before, you (i) assume that there are only two possibilities, (ii) formulate the negation of my statement, (iii) challenge me to prove it to substantiate my disagreement with your conclusion. The problem with this line of thought is at the beginning: attribution of effect to a cause is generally multi-valued. It is the logic we use that is two-valued, not attribution. This is a subtle mistake that many, even intelligent, people make.

If only you put your clearly good mind and this much work into a worthy cause...Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I'll determine what is "a worthy cause" on my own without checking first with the Worthy Cause Police.

That I value your cause differently from you does not make me a policemen --- the two-valued world model is in action again.

For theory-building, one of the implications of an earlier mentioned criterion of reserving judgment, is not to proceed to further tiers of the theory until the preceding one is firmly in place. This is what I meant by the “if only” remark: you have done a great deal of thinking about details that (i) cannot even be established, and (ii) are inconsequential.

It is undisputable that our government wants certainty: we want to know whether bin Laden is alive. Form here, quite simply, our government hopes but G-d decides. They may have decided to kill him in combat of put him through a tribunal (both have merits), but he may have died in one of the bombing. The details, such whether it was early into the war or yesterday in Tora Bora, are inconsequential. They open, what is more, a can of worms, such as whether our government tells us everything we need or want to know; whether this is proper, etc. None of which is well founded or constructive.

In sum, most of what you attempt to analyze is explainable by very parsimoniously (Occam’s razor) UNLESS you ascribe to the actors some sub-surface, inconspicuous motives. Observe that you have done this repeatedly even in communications with me.

[Publius6961]

Noted and filed for future verification.
Unfortunately the fact depends on so many sequential suppositions that the result as of today is highly unlikely.

But I do throw in a heartfelt wish that it were true.

[TopQuark]

I forgot to ask you: could you please use boldface more sparingly in your posts? Typing everything in bold amounts to screaming, in the face of which one tends to tune off.

Could I ask you for that favor without being called the Font Police? Keep your powder dry.

[d14truth]

Usama and Omar Dead???

This might have been a 'local story' allowed out for a certain amount of 'public' consumption. Wouldn't weaken any of your logic or conclusions depending on the location of the 'ACTIVE ZONE'.

[HighWheeler]

Whew. You went a long way on philosphy (and still missed the meaning of the "negative" statement).

But I stopped at your statement: "...UNLESS you ascribe to the actors some sub-surface, inconspicuous motives."

I said that right up front in the first paragraph and that assertion continues throughout. Sheesh. Just read it.

Please don't try to analyze my intentions anymore, you have missed nearly all of them. Instead, put forth your own ideas or analyze the data with examples. For instance, your high school lesson on logic: "For theory-building, one of the implications of an earlier mentioned criterion of reserving judgment, is not to proceed to further tiers of the theory until the preceding one is firmly in place. This is what I meant by the “if only” remark: you have done a great deal of thinking about details that (i) cannot even be established, and (ii) are inconsequential."

That is why assumptions and the substantiation for assumptions are necessary. These let everyone else who actually reads the piece carefully to understand the thread of logic.

Now cite examples.

[MomwithHope]

Well thought out and I too believe he is dead. Too many good reasons not to admit it yet. I don't think it happened in the first 5 days though. The administration needs to buy all the time it can so it can hunt down the rest of the terrorists, especially ones who are on our soil.

[HighWheeler]

That is a pretty explicit article! If this is true, the things I wonder are: Where is the binney's body? Wouldn't the witnesses to this have said so immediately to confirm? Wouldn't there be a followup report shortly after? Wouldn't there have been be a massive investigation near the location? It could also simply be more disinformation.

As much as I hate to admit, Whoraldo made a good point last night. He said that Hitler's body was never found (Hitler shot himself and was burned beyond recognition, so his death was never confirmed, and for decades later the speculation of his "actual" whereabouts continued.

[TopQuark]

long way on philosphy (and still missed the meaning of the "negative" statement). OK, converse. Is that better? But I stopped at your statement: "...UNLESS you ascribe to the actors some sub-surface, inconspicuous motives." I said that right up front in the first paragraph and that assertion continues throughout. Sheesh. Just read it. I did. And, more politely than presently, I said it was worthless.

Please don't try to analyze my intentions anymore I never did; I responded to your writing.

Instead, put forth your own ideas I have done that on other threads. Apparently, you think that discussion is a recitation of ideas with one allowed response.

".... or analyze the data with examples. There are plenty of other possibilities. Do you notice how you always assume only two possibiltiies about everything? Somewhow it's always down to "either-or" for you.

For instance, your high school lesson on logic: "For theory-building, one of the implications..." Most people do not develop this skill (not logic) until or after the graduate school. I am glad, however, that you consider it to be a part of HS curriculum.

Now cite examples. Shoud I also jump for you? Or sing? Despite my explicit assurances, you continue to be defensive, and now also rude.

I'll leave you to the pleasures of uncovering conspiracies around you. I've done my best and wish you all the best.

[DCPatriot]

I disagree with your opinion in #3 above.

If his body is never produced, anybody could committ a terrorist act and "blame it on Osama".

[d14truth]

"Where is the binney's body? Wouldn't the witnesses to this have said so immediately to confirm? Wouldn't there be a followup report shortly after? Wouldn't there have been be a massive investigation near the location?"

I think the information you have discerned comes up with the scenarios to answer or not answer these questions as might be desired for accomplishing objectives.

No body, no talkative witnesses, follow-up report in due course, those in China and Japan who let the word out too early have reached understanding, Geraldo picking up dropped 'nuggets' from the massive investigation that is just beginning.

It's all in the 'timing', much like the stock market.

[HighWheeler]

I'm looking forward to their next report.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Well, As of today, 12/21, your theory still holds water. I am still convinced (well, about 90% positive) that he is toast. What a crazy World we are living in. THere is so much more left to come out into the open. Fregards, MM

[185JHP]

Plus the fact that he could make a tape, and have it transported to another country for surfacing. IMO his being dead without our admitting it is a good thing. It destroys any "apres moi, le deluge" ideas he might have had - and his backers may not want to admit we took him out so fast, so easy, at such little cost. "Goodbye, good riddance, enjoy your new home!"

[HighWheeler]

The fact that we are having such a tough time rooting out the enemy in the caves of Tora Bora had to be a prime consideration before the U.S. started bombing. The best possible opportunity ever presented to the U.S. to kill Osama would be during the initial strikes.

The initial attack by the U.S. would prompt defensive actions by Osama, his only prime defenses would be to run or to hide. Both of these options increase the U.S. risk in failing to kill him, and would allow Osama to orchestrate other retaliatory terrorist actions while still alive. All are highly undesireable alternatives.

Striking hard with a forceful, inescapable initial strike against Osama and his followers had to be first priority. For 8 years, the U.S. (i.e., Clinton) presented a cowardly face to the entire world, even after the USS Cole was bombed. Speed ahead one year. Weeks after 9/11, there was still no response by the U.S., which gave the terrorists a continued false sense of security.

Consider the initial theory that infiltration into the ranks of the Talibanis by CIA operatives was possible. This theory was proved true by the infiltration of ex-Californian John Walker.

So once local confirmation of Osama was made by CIA infiltrators, and the influx concentration of terrorists accumulating around Osama began to wane, it was time to make the strike.

Exposed, unprepared, defenseless, and collected together, Osama and his useful idiots were sitting ducks for the immense power rained down by U.S. forces.

With Osama dead -but still unconfirmed by the rest of the world- The U.S. options in the war are infinite. The U.S. even has the option to electronically transmit the taped voice of Osama to the Al Qaeda bunch to keep them hoping, fighting, and exposing themselves.

We are getting continued tidbits of information about the ultimate demise of Osama. Just two days ago, Bush stated that Osama may still be in a cave, a cave whose entrances were sealed shut by U.S. bombing.

[d14truth]

UBL dead???? Again, or still?